In a new book, physicist says evidence of human role in climate “Is lacking”

Evidence and logic are lacking in many areas of public debate today on hot-button issues ranging from dietary fat to vaccination.

In Science Under Attack, Dr. Alexander shows how science is being abused, sidelined or ignored, making it difficult or impossible for the public to form a reasoned opinion about important issues. Readers will learn why science is becoming more corrupt, and also how it is being abused for political and economic gain, support of activism, or the propping up of religious beliefs.

Conventional scientific wisdom holds that global warming and consequent changes in the climate are primarily our own doing. But what few people realize is that the actual scientific evidence for a substantial human contribution to climate change is flimsy. It requires highly questionable computer climate models to make the connection between global warming and human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).

No proof warming is human caused The multiple lines of evidence which do exist are simply evidence that the world is warming, not proof that the warming comes predominantly from human activity. The supposed proof relies entirely on computer models that attempt to simulate the earth’s highly complex climate and include greenhouse gases as well as aerosols from both volcanic and man-made sources – but almost totally ignore natural variability. Models way off mark So it shouldn’t be surprising that the models have a dismal track record in predicting the future. Most spectacularly, the models failed to predict the recent pause or hiatus in global warming from the late 1990s to about 2014. During this period, the warming rate dropped to only a third to a half of the rate measured from the early 1970s to 1998, while at the same time CO2 kept spewing into the atmosphere.

Out of 32 climate models, only a lone Russian model came anywhere close to the actual observations. Not only did the models overestimate the warming rate by two or three times, they wrongly predict a hot spot in the upper atmosphere that isn’t there, and are unable to accurately reproduce sea level rise. Yet it’s these same failed models that underpin the whole case for catastrophic consequences of man-made climate change, a case embodied in the 2015 Paris Agreement. The international agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions – which 195 nations, together with many of the world’s scientific societies and national academies, have signed on to – is based not on empirical evidence, but on artificial computer models.

Only the models link climate change to human activity. The empirical evidence does not. Correlation is not causation Proponents of human-caused global warming, including a majority of climate scientists, insist that the boost to global temperatures of about 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) since 1850 comes almost exclusively from the steady increase in the atmospheric CO2 level. They argue that elevated CO2 must be the cause of nearly all the warming because the sole major change in climate “forcing” over this period has been from CO2 produced by human activities – mainly the burning of fossil fuels as well as deforestation.

But correlation is not causation, as is well known from statistics or the public health field of epidemiology. So believers in the narrative of catastrophic anthropogenic (human-caused) climate change fall back on computer models to shore up their argument. With the climate change narrative trumpeted by political entities such as the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), and amplified by compliant media worldwide, predictions of computer climate models have acquired the status of quasi-religious edicts.

Warmists on the wrong side of science Indeed, anyone disputing the conventional wisdom is labeled a “denier” by advocates of climate change orthodoxy, who claim that global warming skeptics are just as anti-science as those who believe vaccines cause autism. The much ballyhooed war on science typically lumps climate change skeptics together with creationists, anti-vaccinationists and anti-GMO activists. But the climate warmists are the ones on the wrong side of science. “Fear, hyperbole, heavy-handed tactics” Like their counterparts in the debate over the safety of GMOs, warmists employ fear, hyperbole and heavy-handed political tactics in an attempt to shut down debate.

Yet skepticism about the human influence on global warming persists, and may even be growing among the general public. In 2018, a Gallup poll in the U.S. found that 36% of Americans don’t believe that global warming is caused by human activity, while a UK survey showed that a staggering 64% of the British public feel the same way. And the percentage of climate scientists who endorse the mainstream view of a strong human influence is nowhere near the widely believed 97%, although it’s probably above 50%.

Most scientists who are skeptics like me accept that global warming is real, but not that it’s entirely man-made or that it’s dangerous. The observations alone aren’t evidence for a major human role. Such lack of regard for the importance of empirical evidence, and misguided faith in the power of deficient computer climate models, are abuses of science.

Ralph B. Alexander grew up in Perth, Western Australia, and received his PhD in physics from the University of Oxford. He is also a science writer who puts science above political correctness. With a PhD in physics from the University of Oxford, he is also the author of Global Warming False Alarm, and he has published numerous scientific papers and reports on complex technical issues.

The author has been a researcher at laboratories in Europe and Australia, a professor at Wayne State University in Detroit, the co-founder of an entrepreneurial materials company, and a market analyst in environmentally friendly materials for a small consulting firm. He lives in California with his wife Claudia.

147 thoughts on “In a new book, physicist says evidence of human role in climate “Is lacking””

Was that hot-spot in the equatorial upper troposphere a real prediction by legitimate models? I had read somewhere that the basis for the claim that the warmists were claiming an upper atmosphere hot-spot due to CO2 was flimsier than an actual prediction put to paper, more like something someone mentioned once at a conference. I’m happy to be corrected on this.

Every ‘consensus‘ model which requires a hot spot in the tropical troposphere. Which is 97% to 99% of them. So the Russian model that gets it right is clearly illegitimate because it’s Russian. So all the models which disagree with it must be ‘legitimate‘, eh?

I won’t assay a summary, because I haven’t read the whole thing myself. What I expect to find when I do is this: the significant-positive-feedback assumption that seems to cause the models’ equilibrium-climate-sensitivity (“ECS”) estimates to be high seems in turn to be based on the assumption that surface-temperature increases caused by increased carbon-dioxide concentration will significantly increase the atmosphere’s water-vapor load, and the models say this would so decrease the (magnitude of the) lapse rate as to decrease the temperature difference between the surface and 200-300 hPa, thereby making the temperature at that altitude increase faster than it does at the surface. Yet measurements betray no such comparative increase, implying that this basis for inferring high ECS estimates is invalid.

The “Hot Spot” was a pretty good film noir style movie
that included Virginia Madsen, so hot that you didn’t
even notice Jennifer Connelly (pre-silicone),
and for the ladies, Don Johnson.

Ot maybe you meant the alternative definition
of “hot spot” = The warmest spot in my house
that my black cat will always find,
and sleep in or on it — sometimes getting so hot
laying in a sunny window that
he feels like a heating pad on “high”.

Or maybe you meant the climate change definition:
The mysterious, magical, invisible spot in the troposphere,
about 10 kilometers up,
completely invisible to weather satellites
and weather balloons, that is supposedly evidence
of the bizarre positive feedback water vapor theory,
that allegedly triples the warming effect of CO2 alone,
and never mind that actual warming since 1950,
even if 100% attributed to CO2 (with no proof)
is only one third of the alleged effect of CO2
with the alleged water vapor positive feedback prediction
— a prediction which has been
made every year since 1979
with no revisions, but of course
predicting triple the warming
that actually happened,
is close enough for goobermint work.

The IPCC couldn’t predict enough warming based solely on CO2, so instead they predicted that the CO2 would cause more moisture, H2O. The H2O would cause warming 18km up in the Troposphere above the equator.
With such a ‘brass ring’ out there, one would think there would be multiple papers showing this warming, but there aren’t.

Even with a ‘warmer spot’ at 18km, the temperature would be less than -40°C. Therefore, in cloud-free areas the concentration of water vapour would be (near) zero; in Cumulonimbus, supercooled water droplets would only exist until -40°C (the altitude of this isotherm depending on the vertical energy of the Cb) and any (previous) water vapour sublimating to ice, or Cirrus. Some hotspot.

Sorry to change units but the highest tropopause level I have seen on SIGWX charts issued by NOAA is FL540 (54000 feet).

Thanks for the responses regarding the hot spot. Let me read between the lines, because what I wanted to fill in is the connection between increased water-vapor load and the hot spot. No one said specifically what I speculated, which is that it’s a reduction in lapse rate.

Reduced lapse rate is actually a negative feedback, because it makes the temperature for a given effective emission altitude higher: everything else being equal, it wouldn’t take as high a surface temperature to radiate away the heat absorbed from the sun. But the argument for high ECS, I take it, is that a higher water-vapor load causes other, positive-feedback effects, such as so increasing atmospheric infrared-radiation optical depth as to raise the effective emission altitude by more than enough to compensate for the lapse-rate feedback.

However, Joel O’Bryan seems to be saying something related to lapse rate but maybe not quite the same. He sees the hot spot as caused primarily by water’s actual phase changes—latent to sensible heat aloft vs. sensible to latent heat below—rather than by the fact that water vapor’s molar heat capacity exceeds that of nitrogen or oxygen and would therefore reduce the lapse rate even without phase changes.

Not a helpful reply. Joe is trying to understand the postulated connection, not pontificating on the veracity of the claim. This is the sort of hectoring one should expect at Skeptical Science, not WUWT.

Joe, credible scientists like Roy Spencer have several posts about the tropospheric hotspot which can easily be found by searching the respective keywords. Judith Curry probably does too, though I haven’t searched.

Joe, yours is a pretty good precis of it. It was the most confidently expressed “fingerprint” to be sought of Anthropo GW from the theory back in their heady, more reckless days. Uncooperative Nature has beaten this out of them, with the Dreaded Pause, and other surprises, one of which, IIRC, was that significantly increased watervapor failed to occur in 5he upoer atmosphere. I hope others knowledgeable in whys and wherefores of this onetime keystone in the theory will appear here.

The hot-spot issue was discussed around 2008-2010.
Most folks now commenting are not really familiar with the topic.

Go to Jo Nova’s site and scroll down, watching the left side for
“The Skeptic’s Handbook”

Go to page 4 — watch for the colored drawings.
The date of this booklet is 2009.
I haven’t checked, but I will guess that this issue was discussed at Climate Audit
[no space .org ]
and other sites in that time frame.

“One of the most robust feedback relationships across the IPCC climate models is that those models with the strongest positive water vapor feedback have the strongest negative lapse rate feedback (which is what the “hot spot” would represent). “

The hot spot isn’t just a prediction. It’s the mechanism. The absorbed upward radiation first appears as heat in the upper atmosphere before radiating back down to give the global warming effect. This is, quite simply, how it works. The greenhouse effect in isolation isn’t very complicated. If there is no hot spot, then there’s no warming from greenhouse gases. If the hot spot was spread out, tighter, or in a different place than predicted, that would be one thing, and I would accept arguments that other forces were making things more complicated. However, with the hot spot being completely absent, there shouldn’t be any meaningful greenhouse warming, since that’s what actually does the warming.

Your conceptual picture is incorrect. *If* your concept of the hotspot were correct, then it wouldn’t just be in the tropics. It would exist at all latitudes.

The reason the models predict the *tropical* hotspot at 8-10km up in the troposphere is because the tropics are where there is abundant moisture from convection, and lots of rainfall. And that convection carries latent heat upwards, clouds form, water vapor condenses and falls as rain, and the latent heat is released as sensible heat. That is what the models predict. That is how the modellers get their water vapor positive feedback from the 1 to 1.8 K of CO2 warming. The CMIP 3 ensemble prediction was around a 1.3 ratio of upper troposphere warming to surface temperature warming. The CMIP5 ratio was slightly lower at around 1.25 warming ratio. The observed temperature ratio from balloon data is around 0.80 to 0.85. The models simply are wrong.

You’re right about convection, Joel but I must say I’m impressed with the depth of knowledge displayed in some of these comments about the hot spot. One detail you may not be aware of is that any source of global warming (including the sun) will produce a hot spot, but it’s somewhat hotter for CO2 greenhouse warming.

What’s being left out of this discussion is actually the main point of the entire theory…namely that the hotspot is a necessary component of the radiative forcing theory of global warming. In point of fact, though, it’s merely one half of the proof needed to show that CO2 is responsible for the warming. The other piece postulated (i.e. necessary) is a stratospheric cooling.

So, together, this dipole of tropospheric warming combined with stratospheric cooling is THE proof of radiatively forced global warming. The reason that climate scientists can say this with confidence is because no other warming mechanism can produce this dipole in the models. Certainly they can produce global warming in the models through various other mechanisms, but all those other mechanisms (to use simplistic math terms) simply shift the curve. Radiative warming changes the slope of the curve.

So, that’s why a hotspot (which assumes a coolspot in the stratosphere above it…a dipole) is considered to be the fingerprint of AGW. That’s the evidence they’re using for attribution.

When you hear people claim “what else could it be?”, they’re echoing this point, whether they realize it or not. And the response is, many things could cause the earth to warm. But only one thing can be shown (in the models) to cause a dipole temperature signature. If we assume that this is true, the contrapositive must also be true: if no dipole, no radiative warming.

And, as has been stated, we don’t see the dipole in the actual record. That was the point of Spencer’s (or Christy’s…can’t remember which) paper on the subject from back in ’16 or ’17, which showed the absence of the tropospheric hotpspot.

Conditional : If there is radiative heating, then there is a dipole.
Inverse : If there is not radiative heating, then there is no dipole.
Converse : If there is a dipole, then there is radiative heating.
Contrapositive: If there is not a dipole, then there is not relative heating.

“No proof warming is human caused The multiple lines of evidence which do exist are simply evidence that the world is warming, not proof that the warming comes predominantly from human activity. The supposed proof relies entirely on computer models that attempt to simulate the earth’s highly complex climate and include greenhouse gases as well as aerosols from both volcanic and man-made sources – but almost totally ignore natural variability. ”

“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

When I see “prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states ” I think they believe climate is a quantum system. After all it was Bohr who started this stuff at Solvay 1925. Only 1, note 1, scientist adamently objected to such irrationality, Einstein. He said aterwards he was cast as a charlatain, by that Bohr clique.
Likely we will hear soon the 140+ model “solutions” ensemble are entangled leading to interference!

The age of Unreason can be traced to that Solvay Conference. Not sure what the authors think of that uncomfortable fact.

Schrodinger didn’t really believe his cat could be dead and alive. It was a mockery of Copenhagen interpretation. Dyson is a skeptic of CAGW and the wavefunction collapse. Bohr et al were not original in their irrationality. They copied Berkeley’s 18th century empiricism – the moon is not there when we are not looking at it. They just replaced moon with subatomic particles.

This paper clearly has the specific intent of showing that the proof doesn’t need climate models, which makes it immediately suspicious.
Incredibly, their independent result is within 2% of the IPCC’s figure.
Are you serious? In something so complex and full of uncertainty as climate science they can get a result within 2%? Very likely they adjusted their sttistics to get the result they wanted.
After Climategate we know of the trickery that is common in climate science. For example, the hockey stick shows how you can use complex statistical methods to get any answer you want.
There’s one obvious problem that defies any complex statistics: nearly half of the total global warming had occurred by 1945. Correct me if I’m wrong, but SUV’s and mass air travel hadn’t really taken off in 1945.

And from your other post: yes I’m sure that Dr Alexander knows there are other causes of warming such as water vapour – but in 97% of alarmist nonsense it’s CO2 that gets all the blame.
Chris

Chris: Re half the warming by 1945: it was much more than that before Hansen/GISS got ahold of the data. Hansen even admitted that 1998 hadn’t broken the record. One big problem for CAGW was almost 40 years of dramatic cooling after 1945 that had many of the same Anthropo warmers of today blaming humans for a premature plunge into an Ice Age.

The reversal that followed was simply recovering the temperature to late 1930s level by 1998, just when temps stopped rising (the Pause). So actually, almost alk of the real warming occurred by the mid 30s-40s. GISS and others followed, pushed the former high down a half degree and adjusted us out o the 40 year deep cool off so that the temp curve was rising along its length. It cleverly left the net rise from 1880 unchanged at O.8C.

Steven,
Your ‘one example’ says little more than “we found a bigger/faster bump in the data than we expected from past bumps.”
Apart from not showing the cause of the bump, there was no recognition of the varying resolution of bumps and their respective sizes over time, nor of the questionable quality of the data and its fitness for this type of analysis.
And you were taken in by this non-evidence? Geoff.

What is “easy” is spotting papers that have been written with a purpose to bolster a flawed argument.

One of my personal favorites was the paper that found the tropical hotspot could be measured not with the actual thermometers on the radiosondes but by proxying wind shear from the anemometer readings.

You know very well that most proxies dont have the temporal resolution to see the variation needed. I’d love to see the body of that paper…for a laugh I’m sure.

Then they used the lower statistical uncertainties of the buoy data on the entire adjusted SST data.
And it got through whatever Pal Review that Science Magazine editors put the Karl manuscript through.

The Karl, et al, 2015 Science paper was a bad joke and a vivid display of scientific malfeasance by multiple parties on display.

As far as I can tell, for some time now the bigger and most dreaded problem for AGW is the data showing a pause or hiatus in global warming.

For as long as that, the pause or hiatus, is considered as a slow down in warming, there still some room for push.
But if by any chance it becomes clear that hiatus or the pause is (are) due to a stop or a reversal of warming, then by default the AGW ends up as indisputably nullified and falsified, by the data, regardless of the hypothetical tenets of AGW.

That is where the Karlisation trick comes in. It tries to keep up the temp range that these guys play with, artificially keeping that range from lowering, as otherwise it will show a stop of warming or even a reversal, cooling.

Artificially it tries to keep up the lower range of temps that these guys keep irresponsibly playing and messing with around…from showing a further lowering.
Simply a way or a trick to avoid the worst outcome with the problem these guys have and facing….a hiatus or a pause in warming due to a stop or a reversal of it…which it only in the end can be considered as such as solely due natural variation.

Straightforward application of physics indicates that there would be a benign, or even beneficial, temperature increase if atmospheric CO2 doubles.

Catastrophic warming theory started with Dr. Hansen’s application of feedback analysis. It was then buttressed by computer models. Even if, as the link you supply intimates, the warming is caused by human activity, it doesn’t matter unless it is enough to be catastrophic. Your link doesn’t even come close to demonstrating that.

To say that the human fingerprint has been demonstrated requires that we know what can be expected of the naturally varying climate. We are far from that. The early twentieth century warming was entirely natural. Given that, it’s very hard to blame the nearly identical late twentieth century warming on human activity. link That pretty much puts the kibosh on obviously motivated statistical analysis.

If the climate models are so good, WHY can’t they tell me what the weather is Tomorrow. Defies Logic.
Worse, would you get in a rocket ship to Mars with a computer model of the same caliber having complete control of the navigation system and NO, ZERO ability to override it when you discover it is not going to get you to Mars?

>>
“They argue that elevated CO2 must be the cause of nearly all the warming because the sole major change in climate “forcing” over this period has been from CO2 produced by human activities – mainly the burning of fossil fuels as well as deforestation.”

So. Second of your citations asserts that anthropogenic temperature change is entirely modelled by CO2 change. They even assign a probability of 99% to that, if I’m not mistaken. Pretty much exactly what the author says.

“The author of the book is getting up there in years. No doubt he stopped reading all the science.”
It’s a shame that you suffer from gerontophobia Mosher.
It’s not that he is wrong because he has stopped reading science.
It’s that he is correct because he has extensive life experience that allows him to spot junk pseudoscience when he sees it.

Anyways, what they are doing “We statistically formulate the hypothesis of warming through natural variability by using centennial scale probabilities of natural fluctuations estimated using scaling, fluctuation analysis on multiproxy data.”

Estimating* the range of natural variability from proxies is a tall order and I would expect huge error bars. Yet, they are claiming >99% confidence against natural variability. What proxies are they using for the past/current warming? Or are they comparing proxies to measured temperature with such high confidence? I would love to see their work.

Re Steve and Springer:
***We statistically formulate the hypothesis of warming through natural variability by using centennial scale probabilities of natural fluctuations estimated using scaling, fluctuation analysis on multiproxy data. We take into account two nonclassical statistical features—long range statistical dependencies and “fat tailed” probability distributions (both of which greatly amplify the probability of extremes). Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels >99 %.***
Sure, sure.
Statistically formulate, etc.
You and Springer have MEASURED NOTHING.
As stated earlier, there are NO MEASUREMENTS to show any warming caused by CO2.
Try again Steve.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
And while you are at it show us ONE paper which proves warming in excess of 2 deg C will cause runaway warming.

Mr Watts, a climate skeptic hero, wrote:
” … few people realize is that the actual scientific evidence
for a substantial human contribution to climate change is flimsy.
It requires highly questionable computer climate models
to make the connection between global warming
and human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2).”

This is partially incorrect.
There is no scientific evidence beyond the assumption
that lab experiments on CO2 apply to real life —
that doesn’t even qualify as “flimsy” to me !

The connection between global warming and CO2
was made in the late 1800s, and not made by “models” —
the long-held belief has been PROMOTED with “models”.

The “models” are props in a political game that
makes long-term climate forecasting appear to
be real science.

The basis for the predictions could have
been written on the back of an envelope
— CO2 doubles = average temperature up +3 degrees C. ,
because that’s what 97% of the so called “models”
seem to predict.

But real science is not over three decades
of very wrong average temperature predictions
from the obviously wrong models — they have been
falsified by those wrong predictions
— of course for Dumbocrats, nothing they
believe in can ever be falsified !

To Mr. Mosher:
It pains me to agree with you on anything,
because you are as accurate as
a stopped watch, and because
on the subject of climate science,
based on your comments here,
I believe you are a climate DING DING DING
bat, so focused on surface temperature anomalies,
in tenths of a degree C., that you don’t even realize
those numbers contain no real data — a majority
are wild guess infilling by government bureaucrats,
who want to see more global warming, and the rest
are adjusted raw data — adjusted to whatever those
government bureaucrats want to see
— there is a government monopoly
on surface temperature numbers,
and its no surprise they show more warming
than weather satellite and weather balloon data,
which do correlate with each other.

Now back to the so-called “models”.

There are no long-term climate models.

They can not exist because the physics of
climate change is not yet understood.

There must be a correct climate physics model
supporting a real long-term climate model,
and such a climate physics model does not exist.

The so called climate “models” are not
real models of any climate process on this planet.

Their wrong predictions prove that !

They are merely the opinions of government bureaucrats
converted into complex mathematical equations
to impress lay people — who obviously have no idea
the “model” predictions have been so wrong for
over three decades — typically predicting triple
the warming that actually happened !

The Russian “model”,
obviously in collusion with Trump,
is just a more reasonable personal opinion
than all the other models,
because its predictions about CO2
are similar to the actual warming
since 1950 (if you believe CO2 caused
all of the warming since 1950),
in the absence of scientific proof
that CO2 caused ANY of the warming since 1950 !

The link you provided starts out with “… its quantification relies primarily on complex General Circulation Models (GCM’s) assumptions and codes;” I suppose we can quibble over “entirely” versus “primarily.” Of course, you never use hyperbole! But, either way, there would be little support for an anthropogenic influence without the extant GCMs.

You should be so lucky as to reach the age where some arrogant, know-it-all characterizes you as “getting up there in years.” I have to hand it to you that you have a way with words!

Steve, do you have a full copy of the paper you can link? It’s behind a paywall and costs $40 to rent. I can’t afford to buy access to all these papers that interest me.

I read the abstract, which is very unsatisfactory. I wonder how or if Lovejoy demonstrates fitness of purpose for his statistical methods? He claims his statistical tests prove that empirical methods are “close enough” to climate models that apparently nature verifies them and confirms the AGW CO2 hypothesis. But exactly how close are they really? How are errors and estimates and uncertainty and UHI handled? How are data tampering and data adjustment treated in this context? And then in the results, how close is close enough? What scale or level of divergence does he think would disqualify climate models, or cast suspicion on them? What would be bad enough performance from models to make him buck the trend and change to the d-nye-r side and lobby for the end of model funding from the federal government?

Without the whole paper to look at, this looks like another case of simply ignoring the full power of natural variability while falsely pretending to understand it, and then using the complexity of new and novel statistical claims to vouch for CMIP climate models. If so, then that would make your assertion of an own goal, wrong and moot. But it would fit a very well established pattern that goes to the point, that so much of climate science these days isn’t science at all, but just more of the same old tendentious, alarmist pseudo-science, designed to reach a specific desired, self-serving conclusion.

The paper Steve links to is a different kind of model. Model A (GCMs) validated by model B (using CO2 radiative forcings as a linear surrogate for all anthropogenic effects we estimate). Circular reasoning and not an empirical verification of IPCC projections (guesses). It’s a guess by other means.

“They argue that elevated CO2 must be the cause of nearly all the warming because the sole major change in climate “forcing” over this period has been from CO2 produced by human activities – mainly the burning of fossil fuels as well as deforestation.”

On your chart the anthropogenic biggies are CO2,black carbon and Methane and its breakdown products including water vapour.
These added to the atmosphere are anthropogenic products, so I don’t see why the author disagrees with you, or more exactly, vice versa, when he says ‘mainly the burning of fossil fuels’.

Mosher – “wrong again
C02, CH4, Halocarbons, N20
black carbon.”
You are a true believer! Your blinders only allow visions of human variables into models that can’t predict the past, let alone the future. Please find a religion that has some credible Prophets.

Well, here is another factualist physicist who is willing to risk being kicked out of the club. But, then again, since he has empirical facts on his side of the discussion, I wonder does he really care about his membership.

The IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity are wildly and deliberately exaggerated, to produce a very-scary false result.

Global warming alarmism is a deliberate fraud, in fact it is the greatest fraud, in dollar terms, in the history of humanity.

Properly deployed, the tens of trillions of dollars squandered on global warming alarmism could have:
– put clean water and sanitation systems into every village in the world, saving the lives of about 2 million under-five kids PER YEAR;
– reduced or even eradicated malaria – also a killer of millions of infants and children;
– gone a long way to eliminating world hunger.

Notes and References:

Climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is low – probably less than 1C/(2xCO2).

Lewis and Curry (2018) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.6C/doubling for ECS and 1.3C/doubling for TCR, using Hatcrut4 surface temperatures (ST). These surface temperatures probably have a significant warming bias due to poor siting of measurements, UHI effects, other land use changes, etc.

Both analyses are “full-earth-scale”, which have the least room for errors.

Both are “UPPER BOUND” estimates of sensitivity, derived by assuming that ~ALL* warming is due to increasing atmospheric CO2. It is possible, in fact probable, that less of the warming is driven by CO2, and most of it is natural variation.
(*Note – Christy and McNider make allowance for major volcanoes El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991+)

The slightly higher sensitivity values in Curry and Lewis are due to the higher warming estimates of Hadcrut4 surface temperatures versus UAH LT temperatures.

Practically speaking, however, these maximum sensitivity estimates are similar, about 1C/doubling, and are far too low to support any runaway or catastrophic manmade global warming.

Higher estimates of climate sensitivity have no credibility. There is no real global warming crisis.

Conclusion:
The total impact if increasing atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial to humanity and the environment. Any scientist or politician who contradicts this statement is destructive, acting against the well-being of humanity and the environment.

Mosher actually proves the author’s point by resorting to political hack tactics. Any objective person who has read the Climategate emails can plainly see that the author is correct — science has been infected and corrupted by politics.

Rather than dispute the author’s claim, Mosher attacks his age and tries to imply that the author is uniformed. Let’s face it, everyday a new alarmist paper or article is published — blaming CO2 for everything from wild fires to pig weight. There is no way anyone could read the sheer volume of alarmist propaganda. And even if you tried, the majority of papers are pay-walled.

The one place where political orientation fairly reliably predicts belief or disbelief in scientific findings is global warming. Leftward leaning authors notice this and wonder what is wrong with Republicans that they disbelieve science. The other question is almost never asked. What is wrong with Democrats that they believe very bad science?

Science itself seems to get a bye. Few people criticize science as it is practiced. Some do though, including some scientists.

… science can be wrong or incomplete, and it is far more influenced by social circumstances and cultural myths than many of those within the walls of academia wish to admit. It is also frequently racist, sexist and colonial (see also here). Science is just one of many useful, but necessarily imperfect, ways of seeing the world, one that misses at least as much as it reveals. link

Most ordinary people will have noticed a deluge of conflicting nutritional advice over the years. They, quite rightly, conclude that scientists are not to be trusted on CAGW. It is not top of mind for most people.

The first thing that must happen is that scientists quit claiming godlike omniscience.

Just thought I might be able to help you out there, Bob.
Democrats/Leftists choose to believe all the most awfullest scientific prognostications because they have a prior compulsion to control the lives of others. I suspect that is because they realize deep down that they lack the courage or imagination to do anything bold and meaningful themselves, and so want to make sure no one else does those things.

Eggs are bad for you, wait we did new studies and maybe not.
Cholesterol will kill you, wait we did new studies and maybe not.
Coffee is bad for you, wait we did new studies and maybe not
and on, and on, and on!

None of these relied on real physical research to determine chemical actions in the body down to the cellular level and what conclusions could be made. Instead, small groups were followed and outcomes were assessed through statistical methods. Think of all the things that go on that could affect how the body handles this stuff. Can statistical methods take all this into account? No wonder different studies show different things. Just like climate models!

People assume the general population is stupid. Not so. They have come to distrust any proclamation that says “studies show” and rightfully so. Political polls are fast becoming just as untrustworthy.

Commie:
I don’t know where you got that quote from, but it’s not the kind of thing that supports what you’re trying to say:

“It is also frequently racist”

If it’s racist, it can’t be real science (IMHO), and then:

“Science is just one of many …………. ways of seeing the world”

This statement is typical of a lot of the twenty-first century, post-normal, deconstructionist, touchy-feely nonsense that gets circulated in these crazy times we live in.

Criticising the way that some science (of which climate science is the defining example) is practiced, is what the head post is about, and I can’t say it better than he does.

Science, as she is being done, is not perfect. On that we can all agree, but most scientists really do try to eliminate bias-confirmation, cherry-picking data and so on. With varying success, because we are human and nobody’s perfect. The difference with climate science is that they don’t even TRY, because the underlying theory cannot be questioned; it is dogma, and if the data don’t support it, the data get sent to re-education camps.

Other fields of scientific endeavour often have their own “consensus” issues that you’re not supposed to question, like string theory and mantle plumes. But they don’t inform public policy and lead to the expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars on schemes that are supposed to solve a problem whose existence is at best questionable and at worst, non-existent. And they don’t destroy the careers of those who question them

The statement that “the world is warming” has zero scientific meaning, as firstly it is completely dependent on what time period you are talking about, and secondly it merely assumes that what has occurred during your cherry-picked time period will continue. All we can really say is that we have warmed up some since the LIA. So? We’ve actually cooled over the last 10k years, with certainly many ups and downs. The overall trend though, for 10k years is down, so logically, it makes sense that that trend will continue, right into the next interglacial period.

I don’t understand why this key point, that the earth is warming claim is essentially meaningless since it depends on what time period one references and further assumes the ability to predict the future, is so often overlooked by skeptical scientists. They seem so eager to be seen as reasonable: “oh yes, of course the earth is warming (the question is why and to what effect?)”

Let’s face it. Most people either do not understand the way facts are explained in places like this web site or books like this, or they do not know or have an awareness that there is a difference between the propaganda offered each day as science and actual science.

Some of this is because most people are too busy just making ends meet and managing the day to day events of their family life to try to investigate what is true and what is just smoke. Some want to see a crisis, because it’s convenient and matches their objectives, and some simply have issues with reading comprehension.

Unless things are laid out in simplistic terms, with plain-speak clarity, we can argue and present facts all day . . . but few hear them. What they hear and believe comes through other channels—channels with less data and more hyperbole. Actually, this is (I think) why Trump was elected. He seemed to tap into this simplified messaging effectively. I guess I’m fairly cynical, but it would seem that no matter what is presented, even if we had absolute truth on climate (or anything) available to us, unless it’s presented and distributed in a way that people hear and understand then it may as well be hidden in a remote library stack.

“Unless things are laid out in simplistic terms, with plain-speak clarity, we can argue and present facts all day . . . but few hear them.”

Here’s a fairly simple explanation of AGW (and why it should be viewed with suspicion) written by the “experts” a the IPCC themselves (emphasis added):

“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions. This reduces climate change to the discernment of significant differences in the statistics of such ensembles. The generation of such model ensembles will require the dedication of greatly increased computer resources and the application of new methods of model diagnosis. Addressing adequately the statistical nature of climate is computationally intensive, but such statistical information is essential.”

1) We don’t know enough about the climate to describe the physics of it with any certainty, therefore, it’s impossible to predict the long-term state of it.
2) The best we can hope for is the probability that we might have an accurate prediction based on a statistical analysis of the results of a bunch of climate model runs (ensembles).
3) But 2) is made more unlikely at the moment because we really don’t have adequate computer hardware yet to handle the complexity of the climate’s physics.
4) Even if we had 3) the models can’t be diagnosed.
5) Even if we had 3) and 4) they’re made moot because of 1), which, or so it seems to me, is the reason nothing else really matters. You have to fix 1) to move forward at all.

Climate changes, it always has and it always will. The claim is that humans caused most climate change, but only since 1970, or so, despite the fact that the change in temperature from the first half of the 20th century was about the same as the change in the second half of the 20th century.

The claims are based on a guess—a thing scientists call a hypothesis—and this guess has been turned into computer models, but they are still just guesses. These guesses (models) have never been proven correct. Despite failure after failure, we are still asked to believe they are true.

Lately, the guessers have been claiming their models are validated by looking at past history, but that’s logically like plugging an extension cord into itself and calling it a power system. The guesses were based on looking at history—but only cheery-picked history—so they would have to agree with that. A real model is tested by predicting things in advance, and (as I said) they have failed again and again. In REAL science they would have been trashed—but this isn’t science, it’s politics.

The truth is that those pushing this fake science have a political agenda—to establish one world government and to use the taxes imposed and other dictates to transfer wealth from Americans to other nations. It is a solution that has been desperately looking for an excuse to impose for decades.

Here is what we know:

—The climate changes
—Humans probably have some unknown and likely unknowable small impact on this change, but in all likelihood can not really stop or affect it much—although the “solutions” offered will cost a LOT for almost no impact.
—we don’t know if the changes happening are good or bad for us, although those trying to do this to us pretend they do know. These are just like shouting fire or the sky is falling to get us to surrender to their agenda.
—It’s likely that warmer temperatures are good for us, and higher levels of CO2 needed to help produce more food.
—The currently advertised temperature is much closer to ice age temperatures than to the warming period temperatures, so the greatest danger for us would probably be a cooling of the planet.
—we need to know more before trying to guess and pass policies that hurt everyone economically, but which may very well be the opposite of what’s needed, for all we know. We should continue to monitor the climate, without trying to assign cause-effect (since we don’t know), and save our resources so that we can adapt to the ever changing climate—a thing humans have been doing since there were humans.

I think I get the gist of what you’re getting at. I have been an engineer since 1979. I wasn’t always an engineer. I started life as a regular person. But I went to school, and was rather vigorously trained in quantitative thinking. I’ve worked in test. I’ve worked in design. I’ve managed. I’ve worked in pure analysis. I’m still working. I think of myself as a regular person, but I’m not. I have a family. I go to church on Sunday and sing in the choir. I have pets. I hike. But I’m not like other people. In all the years of quantitative thinking – to make a living for my family and myself – by brain has been immutably altered. (I thinks so anyway).

So. The whole climate change thing is quite simple for people like me. Look at the data, access its quality, study the lit, figure out what’s going on. Took me a couple of years, but I figured out it there is absolutely no credible cause for alarm climate wise. I keep up on it now, just to watch it evolve as a kind of fad / fetish and hope it dies out soon. It’s destructive.

But regular people have a tough time with it; because I think, their brains work different. I just look at the data, the lit, the physics; but they listen to the telly, they listen to their friends, and they think they are showing concern for something that is somehow (and they don’t understand the how part) important and sort of pretending to care (if that’s the right word…) is, well, in fashion right now.

Time will pass and this particular fad with it’s appear to a sort of cleanliness fetish will pass.

It would be nice if it could happen quickly, and it would be wonderful if we could just somehow get people to understand how stupid this is; but don’t hold your breath. There are very few like us and they’ll just have to get bored after they realize for the umteenth time that nothing out of the ordinary is happening climate-wise.

Yes. The issue is basically one of skill at communications and PR, and in this arena the climate evangelists have the edge—unfortunately it’s in their interest to keep pushing.

I, too, had a technical career—physicist and principle investigator (which meant being engineer, manager, and having to go get funding for my own research and development projects). It’s interesting to watch the way different people communicate, and to see how many times the message is either poorly communicated or simply not understood.

Where I live in a farming community, people could care less about rising temperatures. They basically operate on the “cold winter, hot summer, or vice versatile model”. They could care less if summer temps are 98, 99, or 100 and winter are 15, 16, or 17. What they care about is snow cover in the winter to protect the winter wheat, rain after planting to make the corn and soybeans, and milo grow. They care if the rain stops during harvest.

I am sure most of the folks on the east and left coasts in the big cities may worry more about temperatures and their comfort. But, they should worry about food costs more.

Scientists would do us much more good if they would focus less on “global temps” and focus more on rainfall and how it will change and CO2 and how it affects plant growth. Computer power put to these would help more people than renewables that only help politicians and investors get rich.

The article reads: “…is based not on empirical evidence, but on artificial computer models.”

All computer models are artificial. I believe what is meant is “…based not on empirical evidence, but on unvalidated computer models.

A model is not regarded as being able to make predictions until it has been validated. The only candidate is the Russian model that has forecast temperatures reasonably similar to subsequent measurements. No one talks about its 100 year projections, but perhaps we could consider it “valid” if temperatures continue to closely follow its calculated outputs.

For the rest, there really isn’t much to discuss. They don’t deserve our attention until they have been significantly improved. That will require several basic changes to their mathematics, for example to the incorrect assumptions about feedbacks not occurring until 1850 and misconceptions about what happens to the global temperature when GHG’s reach low values. Both undermine modeller’s assumptions of high sensitivity to GHG’s.

Good point, Crispin! The models are supposedly validated by “hindcasting”, or fiddling with all the adjustable parameters until the past projection matches reality. But that highly questionable exercise is useless unless the past climate is basically the same as the present – which it isn’t, of course.

The hindcast sort of matched reality.
First off, even the global averages were only a so so match.
Secondly, all of the individual regions were way off, it was only the global average that even somewhat approached reality.

Only in climate science can you average a dozen wrong answers and claim this gives you the right answer.

Fascinating, nature seems to refuse to validate the predictions of arrogant would-be-prophets.
Chaos likes to fly in the face of the best logical prediction of outcome.
So far climate science suffers from the same fate as Pericles.

A model is an expression of the behavior of a system to inputs to that system in its operational environment. It is generally expressed mathematically. It is kind of important that the model be verified – that is, that it gets the right answers – the model was developed correctly. The model also should be validated – that is, that is a correct representation of the behavior in question. Note that a model can be verifiably correct (the inputs give the right answers) but it can be invalid – it isn’t a correct representation of the system behavior. So models must be both verified and validated.

Models are often represented in software codes, in order to solve them at all. So the codes must be verified to show that they get the right answers for a given set of inputs. But they must also be validated – that they are a correct representation of the verified and validated model.

Some of you may disagree with this – fine. But tell me how you would go from some basic understanding of the behavior of a system to a computer code that you could trust to be a correct representation of the behavior of interest.

I must give tremendous thanks to Kip Hansen for finding me the original paper on the spectroscopy absorption line parameters of the greenhouse gases. That is is the paper that Hansen used to program his climate sensitivity into his model. That paper came out in 26 January 1973. It was a US Air Force sponsored paper with 8 scientists involved. I havent finished reading it but one important fact already stands out. The line absorption intensities of the gases result was determined using Lorentz line shapes at 296K. They did that because that is room temperature. That is 8 K warmer than the average surface temperature. Even though the computer programs calculate the forcing sensitivity on a grid basis of the whole world, in the end the global average surface temperature is a key ingredient of the programs. It has to be because they have to project a global average for the future.

The absorption capability of gases in an atmosphere actually increases with temperature. Therefore by using the results of an experiment carried out at 8 K warmer than the average earth temperature, the paper would have overestimated the absorption capabilities of CO2 in the lower troposphere which is the important place.
Not only that , over the years climate models have adopted the Voight profile for the line shape of CO2 because it enabled them to claim 40% more forcing from a doubling of CO2. However Dr. Will Happer has proved that far wing absorption from the Voight profile DOES NOT EXIST. The whole reason for adopting Voight in the 1st place was to show increased absorption in the far wings of the CO2 line profile.

That 1973 study also assumes the Lorentz profile. It goes on to say that the Lorentz profile does not accurately account for the Doppler line width which varies with frequency, temperature and molecular mass. Using the Voight profile corrects for that.

So how can we know what the back radiation is if the original absorption intensity was calculated at a temperature 8 degrees more than global average and even that intensity was overestimated by 40 %?

It seems to me that with the known lapse rate, the region where the absorption and back radiation takes place is MUCH colder than the surface. Thus, the difference is much more than 8 degrees.

I’m struck by the fact that your dialog above, and numerous detailed objections to technical details by others, should bring the whole charade to its knees. However, with a lock on what gets published in ‘prestigious’ journals, and an unwillingness to publicly discuss such things, it becomes ‘business as usual.’ If only there were some way to force the defenders of alarmism to deal with the complaints such as yours above! We have our resident ‘expert’ Mosher, who engages in drive-by snow ball lobbing, but rarely gets back with a cogent response when it is pointed out that he is wrong. The media-acknowledged ‘experts’ hole up in their Ivory Towers, confident that they have adequate food and water to wait out the siege.

I’m gonna run a little test on you. Its about Lateral Thinking and not very least, Honesty.

Am gonna recount a story I read here on the interweb – from a forum devoted to renewable energy – that’s of little importance.
And its about salmon. We’ve just been talking about them so everyone knows what a salmon looks like.

The story…
Was recounted by a chap who (in his younger days) worked in and around Scotland as a diver. Underwater stuff but not, I don’t think, ‘on the rigs’
Where he did work though was at fish farms, especially salmon farms. Scotland innit.

He had plenty work as a diver helping build and subsequently maintaining the farms, especially the underwater netting holding the salmon.

He got this ‘plenty’ work because of seals.
The seals would be constantly attacking the farmed fish and damaging the netting – it was his vocation to go down there and fix it.

A thing that he and the fish farmers stressed about was simply The Utter Destructive Madness of the seals.
They would gain entry to the nets and would help themselves to the captive salmon fish.
What seemed crazy and drove the farmer to utterly hate & despise the seals was that the seals, upon attacking a salmon, would simply take a bite out of the fish’s belly.
Just one fairly small bite, obviously killing the fish, then ‘discarding’ the rest.
Dozens if not hundreds. Epic waste.

Everyone involved could simply not understand the wanton and murderous destructiveness of the seals. (Foxes in chicken runs? Yes/no)

Here’s the test.
Do you agree with the fish farmers that the seals are simply murderous and utterly wasteful vermin?

Is there anything else that might be going on. Why is the seal doing what it does?
Have a good think before scrolling down to see what I think.
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-
—-

Seemingly I’m alone on this but, I’d suggest that the seals are going The Very Best Most Nutritious Part of the salmon.
Its liver. The fat processing organ and lets face it, there’s not a lot of fat anywhere else inside a fish.
In the same way, should you visit upon a tribe of indigenous hunter gatherers, as a sign of hospitality, they may offer you a chunk, still warm and very raw, of the liver from their latest kill.

99.9999999999999% of modern westerners would recoil in disgust and horror.
Wouldn’t you? (That was a part of the honesty bit)
The other honesty bit was, did you think the same as I did about the seals stealing the livers.
Did you really, or, did you use projection to justify the seemingly crazy and murderous behaviour of the seals inside the fish-pen. Is that what you might do if you were a seal?

What if you were the ‘seal’ and the ‘salmon’ were replaced by a seemingly infinite pot of money?

Explains A Lot Of Things dunnit just……

I don’t wanna know the answer, I don’t need to know the answer, only you do.

On the other hand, there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that when predators such as foxes, skunks, or raccoons break into a hen house at night, they will wantonly kill as many chickens as they have the opportunity to. I’ve never heard a chicken farmer comment about the chickens being selectively eaten. So, it may be in the nature of predators to kill as many as possible, when given the opportunity.

As to your philosophical question, Lord Acton observed that “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.’ Money is a form of power.

The troposphere is warming
The stratosphere is cooling
The tropopause is increasing altitude
Clear evidence of the GHE

Using carbon isotope analysis the increase in atmospheric CO2 ( a known GHG) can be directly attributed to the burning of fossil fuels, a human activity.”

Even if your 1st 3 statements are true which by the way, there is no proven trend of either one of those statements: that does not prove evidence of CAGW. 0.5% increase in CO2 every year but man is putting 30,000,000,000 tons of CO2 into atmosphere every year. If you wanna argue that AGW is happening I say so what? Wake me up if you can prove CAGW.

The IPCC recognizes that H2O is the dominant GHG. As a condensing GHG it is an amplifier, while CO2 as a non-condensing GHG is an driver. In order for the atmosphere to hold more water, something has to raise the temperature, that something is a non-condensing GHG such as CO2.

So 4 molecules of CO2 for every 10K molecules of atmosphere vs. 2.5 in pre-industrial times. is responsible for more climate change than the variance of water vapor in the atmosphere due to multi-decadal ocean cycles? The oceans contain 99.9% of the planets heat (much of it pulled deep by currents), The atmosphere only .1%. How will the atmosphere control the temperature of the oceans?

“In order for the atmosphere to hold more water, something has to raise the temperature, that something is a non-condensing GHG such as CO2.

Many other factors influence how much water the air can hold at any moment. Please explain how CO2 raises the arctic temperatures only in winter, yet summer temperatures are normal or below? That is what we observe, and almost all recent global temp anomalies are due to the extreme latitudes’ temperatures. You should subscribe to weatherbell.com and learn from Joe.

Jack, climate (as you must know) is weather in the long term You confuse me with a fellow dolt. Your approach to the whole concept is so simplistic it’s obtuse. You appear unable to provide references for your drive-by proclamation. Please back up what you wrote without further diversion.

In the troposphere, vibrationally excited CO2 is collisionally relaxed, putting kinetic energy into the atmosphere.

However, the climate has several rapid response modes to divert that energy, including evaporation, convection, cloud formation, and precipitation. A change in those can remove the kinetic energy, so that it never shows up as sensible heat.

None of those processes are accurately modeled, and for none of them is the physics in hand; especially not for cloud formation and precipitation.

The response of the climate to CO2 emissions cannot be modeled or predicted. The warming troposphere, then, is causally moot.

Tropospheric warming is not evidence of AGW because there is no valid physical theory of climate to reveal it as such.

Apart from the ambiguity arising from not knowing the science of climate, the troposphere has warmed and cooled many times without any injections of CO2.

So, tropospheric warming itself can have any one (or more) of multiple causes, or even be acausal when one thinks of the behavior of the climate subsystems as coupled oscillators.

That’s the science, Jack. It’s inadequate to make a diagnosis. As regards the effects of CO2, it does not even reach the level of equivocal.

While we cannot exactly model climate, we know enough to establish polices. The precautionary principle requires attention. We wear seatbelts even though we cannot predict when we will have a car accident.

The stratosphere temperature is reactive to the solar cycle. It cools and heats cyclically. The tropopause height is a function of the presently cooling tropopause during this deep solar minimum. See http://www.spaceweather.com for an explanation of this.
Jack, if you will post proof of GHGs regulating the stratosphere/troposphere boundary, we would really love to see it here.

“”Compared to the murky decades of the el Chichon and Pinatubo, the clear stratosphere since 1995 has allowed the intensity of sunlight reaching the ground to increase by about 0.6 Watts per square meter,” says Keen. “That’s equivalent to a warming of 1 or 2 tenths of a degree C (0.1 C to 0.2 C).”

“In other words,” he adds, “over the past 40 years, the decrease of volcanic aerosols and the increase of greenhouse gases have contributed equally to the total warming (~0.3 C) observed in global satellite temperature records.”

“To help keep track of what’s happening in the thermosphere, Mlynczak and colleagues recently introduced the “Thermosphere Climate Index” (TCI)–a number expressed in Watts that tells how much heat NO molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, the TCI is high (“Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (“Cold”).

“Right now, it is very low indeed,” says Mlynczak. “SABER is currently measuring 33 billion Watts of infrared power from NO. That’s 10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle.”

Although SABER has been in orbit for only 17 years, Mlynczak and colleagues recently calculated TCI going all the way back to the 1940s. “SABER taught us to do this by revealing how TCI depends on other variables such as geomagnetic activity and the sun’s UV output–things we have been measuring for decades,” he explains. The historical record shows a strong correlation between TCI and the solar cycle.”http://www.spaceweather.com/

Dont confuse anti GMO with anti corporate control of the global food chain.

Monstanto is a rotten corporation. The science is a separate matter for me. When Monsanto spend millions on facebook sock accounts, twitter accounts and lobby with millions to prevent you knowing if food contains their products..

All of those “science” pages on social media that constantly attack critics of these areas, ALL of them are funded by the very corporations that make the products being criticized.

GMOs are an experiment on humans. Have been an experiment on humans, and any claim to the contrary is a patent falsehood I would destroy in seconds with some simple well known facts.
Corporate science gets away with “we didnt find harm” being equal to “there is no harm”.

As for Vaccines, no they are not “safe”, they are “effective”.
Safe = risk to the individual, anyone who claims there are no risks or side effects, need just read up the literature and the documentation that accompanies such vaccines.
Effective = Impact on the group. Infections rates have declined.

So no, the answer is clear, vaccines are not “safe” but are “effective” at reducing infections or disease in a group, try that safe argument on the 50k people in one year in India who were given a worse strain of polio from vaccines than what they might have contracted naturally.

India has been a lab for GMO and Vaccines, and the utter corrupt nature of it’s politicians and bureaucrats have allowed people to be used as lab rats.

My issues is not with the science, it is with the corporations who are proven liars, and frauds and use non scientific methods to push their products

The blanket defence of GMO on here is akin to defending climate models

I’ll buy this book. I might not even read it as I’m given to fiction, cookbooks and interior design and it confirms what I observe (mostly rather mindless curve fitting) anyway. But it’ll be great figuring prominently on the coffee table. Say a scarecrow to drive off those zealous “friends” who love my coffee and baking but often have a way of becoming quite nagging about this subject, Holland seeing itself as a “guiding” country here. Oh well the mouse that roared 🙂

Yes, you’re right. The post on WUWT incorporates some subheadings introduced on another blog (NoTricksZone) – my original (at http://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/) had no subheadings. On WUWT, the subheadings are mixed up with the text.

Yes, it has some subheadings from another website (NoTricksZone) that also published the blog post, and the subheadings are all mixed up with the text. My original post, which has no subheadings, can be found at http://www.scienceunderattack.com/blog/

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy